Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: A critical review

1.7kCitations
Citations of this article
859Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) provide a simple technique for measuring subjective experience. They have been established as valid and reliable in a range of clinical and research applications, although there is also evidence of increased error and decreased sensitivity when used with some subject groups. Decisions concerned with the choice of scoring interval, experimental design, and statistical analysis for VAS have in some instances been based on convention, assumption and convenience, highlighting the need for more comprehensive assessment of individual scales if this versatile and sensitive measurement technique is to be used to full advantage. © 1988, Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.

References Powered by Scopus

An Inventory for Measuring Depression

30730Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A rating scale for depression

28685Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A Self-Rating Depression Scale

7750Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Measuring Health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires

3880Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP)

3675Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Pain: A review of three commonly used pain rating scales

2228Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

McCormack, H. M., Horne, D. J. de L., & Sheather, S. (1988). Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: A critical review. Psychological Medicine, 18(4), 1007–1019. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700009934

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 318

68%

Researcher 90

19%

Professor / Associate Prof. 34

7%

Lecturer / Post doc 24

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 230

56%

Nursing and Health Professions 90

22%

Psychology 63

15%

Sports and Recreations 26

6%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
References: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free